[Troll]

The Story

Japan and France have agreed to develop the technology for a new supersonic commercial aircraft that could cut the flying time between Tokyo and New York by almost half to six hours, Japanese media reported on Wednesday.

Under a deal signed at the Paris air show on Tuesday, the two countries will try to revive the fortunes of supersonic travel less than two years after Britain and France retired their Concorde service.

Japan's trade and industry ministry said the countries would each invest about 100m yen ($913 000) a year over three years on research for the plane, which will seat 300 people -- three times the capacity of Concorde.

French aerospace officials were reportedly impressed by Japan's successful test in 2003 of an engine that could propel an aircraft to more than five times the speed of sound. Concorde flew at twice the speed of sound.

$6m doesn't sound like a lot of research, but let's hope this leads to something.

[d.fine]

Yea, but its 600 million yen, maybe they can stretch that a lot further

[brapper]

yeah 600m isn't too much...
didn't the A380 cost a couple billion in R&D?
perhaps they're just improving on the design of the Concorde and don't need to start from scratch.

[d.fine]

They allready appear to have an engine...

[Randman]

[img]deleted[/img]

[moonmonkey]

Damn! those afterburners are powerfull.

[mitchell_pgh]

The problem was never really about the technology, it was about the price of the tickets. People weren't willing to pay 3X more for a flight that's 1/2 as long.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

The problem was never really about the technology, it was about the price of the tickets.

From what I understand, the French and the Japanese see the price of tickets on the Concorde as having been a technology problem. Maybe they think they can lower the price. I certainly would consider paying more for a flight that's 5 times faster.

Btw, it isn't $600m, it's $6m. The total R&D cost of the A380 was in the billions, but the first time they announced the project at Le Bourget (it was a joint announcement with Boeing at the time), I doubt they'd spent very much money at all. Perhaps this kind of feasibility research.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Randman

[img]deleted[/img]

[img]deleted[/img]

[Hugi]

Originally Posted by badidea

[:XI:]

Originally Posted by badidea

What's the point of posting that?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by :XI:

What's the point of posting that?

Are you blind?

[BoomStick]

Badidea is nothing more than a terrorist troll.

You MIGHT be a pilot, but I highly doubt it now because even I would have never stooped so low as to show a ship and her whole SOB's being purposfully destroyed.

I really have lost any respect I may have ever had for you as a "pilot".

I think you took one or two lessons at one time and washed out, now you pretend to be a pilot.

[bubblewrap]

I agree.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Randman

[img] POSTED SOMETHING RETARDED [/img]

Originally Posted by badidea

[img] POSTED SOMETHING RETARDED [/img]

[badidea]

First, I am not a pilot and I never pretended to be one - don't know where you got that from!
Second, if you can't see that my post wasn't anymore stupid than Randmans post of a catastrophy then you should lose respect of yourself! (I just wanted to point out how wrong Randmans picture was in this thread and my mission was almost successful)

[bubblewrap]

I was going to chastise him for his picture when you dropped the one on really bad taste.
I agree the Concorde burning was awful. Those people and crew were scared out of their wits. Aircraft tragedies happen.

Not discussing such events are an unwritten rule among pilots. Especially being an ass about them.

[paul w]

anyway lemme know when they seat more than 100 passangers and cost less than 10 grand.

[BoomStick]

Originally Posted by badidea

(I just wanted to point out how wrong Randmans picture was in this thread and my mission was almost successful)

No, you have lost any respect I or any other pilot might have ever had for you.

Both of those aircraft were filled with terrified people with only one way to go.

You gladly trivialized their grim and hopeless situation with nothing more than a wish to retaliate over an accidental tragedy.

You have lowered yourself down to the trash that murdered all of those people.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

I was going to chastise him for his picture when you dropped the one on really bad taste.

Hmmm, well but neither you nor anyone else did do it.
I know that my post was very bad taste - just as the Concorde picture!
And the responses to my post were exactly what I expected -> posting a picture of an "american"(even so hundreds of people from around the world died) catastrophy seems to retarded while an "european" one is acceptable!?

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

I agree the Concorde burning was awful. Those people and crew were scared out of their wits. Aircraft tragedies happen.

They were not only scared, all of them died seconds later!!!

[bubblewrap]

I didn't get a chance before the shitstorm started.
And we don't discuss deaths either.
I think it comes from days of sailing.


Randman, that was beyond unnecessary. In very bad taste. The Concord did not crash by it's own design but from a non FAA approved part breaking off another plane.

[Randman]

If you found my picture offensive, a simple pm would have done it. Even though I have nothing but contempt for you, I did remove the image.

Though I would argue that a picture of a trouble Concorde does indeed merit some worthiness in a thread concerning that airplane's possible return.

There is NO way in how that correlates with an image that you know damn well is offensive to most people and it serves NO reason whatsover except that you are a pr1ck and think it's funny.

So, let's see: poster 1: concorde may come back
poster 2: concorde was troubled (illustrated by image).
poster 1 again: Ohh, I don't like that. I'll run something truly offensive and totally irrelevant then try to justify it.

You're a loser.

[Hugi]

C'mon guys, stop the bickering and tell me more about the new aircraft.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Randman

Even though I have nothing but contempt for you, I did remove the image.

Don't worry, I have the same feelings for you, honey! But since you removed your image, there's no more need to keep mine...

Originally Posted by Randman

Though I would argue that a picture of a trouble Concorde does indeed merit some worthiness in a thread concerning that airplane's possible return.

Maybe you should read the first post again - this thread is not about the return of the Concorde - it's about a completely new supersonic airplane!

Originally Posted by Randman

There is NO way in how that correlates with an image that you know damn well is offensive to most people and it serves NO reason whatsover except that you are a pr1ck and think it's funny.

Does that mean you understood my point now??? Don't you think your picture was about as offensive to a lot of people (about 100 Germans died in that airplane)?!?!?

Originally Posted by Randman

You're a loser.

Not more than you...

[ThinkInsane]

Back on topic please

[iLikebeer]

Anybody have a link to the engine Japan tested in 2003 that could propel an aircraft to 5 times the speed of sound. It sounds like a lot of wishful thinking. The aerospace industry always seems to promise these new engine designs that never realize the hype:
Aerospike
Numerous general aviation sized jet engines.
Even the successful test of the scramjet last year only got a car sized model to Mach 7 for less than 10 seconds.

I could see super-efficient low-bypass turbofans being used for an efficient, low Mach transport; but it looks like they want to go with the NASA proven way of trying to redesign most of the major aircraft parts to next generation specs while hoping they all work as theorized to get some pie-in-the-sky performance that ends up being craptacular.

Hopefully they are just laying some very long term groundwork for research into what would need to be developed to make this feasible. If there is another unsuccesful SST, it will be a long time before anyone tries again, even when the technology is actually ready.

[bubblewrap]

The Concords problem was high ticket price propably because of limited seating.(and the aount of fuel required)
A larger plane would just make more sense.

[osiris]

The new bird will hold 300 lucky passengers. But I seriously doubt a ticket will be less than $5000 ( which is a bit more than what business class costs now on a plain old jet doing the same run)

The US should bring the SR-71 out of retirement, retrofit a nice seating arrangement, and cut that time down to 2 hours.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by osiris

The US should bring the SR-71 out of retirement, retrofit a nice seating arrangement, and cut that time down to 2 hours.

The greatest airplane of all time!
How many "passenger" seats did it have? 2?

[wdlove]

I wish Japan and France success in this new project.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

The Concords problem was high ticket price propably because of limited seating.(and the aount of fuel required)
A larger plane would just make more sense.

Larger and supersonic don't go together well. You need larger engines and fuselage to carry more people, larger wings to create enough lift for the extra weight. All of these create more equivalent parasite area. Double the speed from Mach 2 to Mach 4 and the parasite drag goes up 4 times from speed alone. The Concorde looked like it did for a reason, just like conventional transports haven't changed much in appearance over the last 40 years.

The SR-71 was designed for speed, and is supposedly only able to reach Mach 3 speeds; after refueling after takeoff no less. IMO, they would actually be better off redesigning the Concorde. I wouldn't expect to take any luggage or carry on onto a 300 seat SST. No meals, drinks, or bathrooms either. Larger people most likely would have to buy 2 seats. Maybe in another 20 years.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by badidea

The greatest airplane of all time!
How many "passenger" seats did it have? 2?

Calling them "passenger" seats is being generous. I got to sit in an SR-71 many years ago. I was under 5 feet tall and skinny as a broom and that back seat was still hard to squeeze into. I wouldn't even call it a seat, more like a tiny shelf to rest part of your butt on. The front seat was a little better, but most people would probably get claustrophobic in there after a very short time.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by badidea

The greatest airplane of all time!
How many "passenger" seats did it have? 2?

Yep, only 2. But definately my favorite! It's hard to imagine it was designed in the 1950's and remained a secret for decades. It's still the fastest jet we have!

[ghporter]

The biggest problem with Concorde was that it was 1965 technology. It was not cost effective to fly at even very high airfare rates because it drank fuel like crazy. Sure, there were some innovations-cooling the leading edges with the fuel feed sounds crazy, but it kept the edges cooler while making the fuel vaporize easier in the engines-but mostly those engines were old, old, OLD designs. ANY new design, based on modern engines, would be a major step toward economical supersonic flight.

And don't start talking about those big jets like the 777 and the new Airbus; they are all built for SUBSONIC flight, so their engines are not at all applicable. Most economy advances come from the ducted fan effect of the "high-bypass turbofan" engine design. Basically the first intake stage is a huge propeller, generating an enormous amount of thrust just by pulling air through the outer cowling. That sort of thing does not work with anything over Mach 1.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The biggest problem with Concorde was that it was 1965 technology. It was not cost effective to fly at even very high airfare rates because it drank fuel like crazy. Sure, there were some innovations-cooling the leading edges with the fuel feed sounds crazy, but it kept the edges cooler while making the fuel vaporize easier in the engines-but mostly those engines were old, old, OLD designs. ANY new design, based on modern engines, would be a major step toward economical supersonic flight.

And don't start talking about those big jets like the 777 and the new Airbus; they are all built for SUBSONIC flight, so their engines are not at all applicable. Most economy advances come from the ducted fan effect of the "high-bypass turbofan" engine design. Basically the first intake stage is a huge propeller, generating an enormous amount of thrust just by pulling air through the outer cowling. That sort of thing does not work with anything over Mach 1.

There are 2 ways to create thrust. Accelerate a small mass of air a lot (turbojets), or accelerate a large mass of air a little (turbofans). Turbojets can give you extremely high amounts of thrust and speed, but waste tons of fuel. High bypass turbofans are extremely efficient and are now approaching 20 to 1 bypass ratios; but like you said, they are only good for subsonic. That is why every fighter produced in recent history uses low bypass turbofans with afterburners. They are a good compromise of performance and economy with bypass ratios of less than 1 to 1.

The Concorde used turbojets and got horrible fuel economy. If they want to get twice as many passengers at twice the speed, they are going to need a huge breakthrough in engine technology. I didn't say they should use high bypass turbofans, that would obviously never work. What other currently viable engine technology is there that can give an order of magnitude in thrust, increased specific fuel consumption, and not be so large as to negate its increased performance with more drag at supersonic speeds?

Think of the problem this way. Total drag is mostly parasite drag at high speeds. Parasite drag increases as the square of the velocity increase.
2 X speed = 4 X drag.
4 X speed = 16 X drag.
This extra drag has to be overcome somehow. General transport category aircraft typically cruise around 0.75 to 0.9 Mach at an efficiency some airlines are still having trouble with. Without some magical new engine, any SST is going to be extremely expensive to build and maintain. The aircraft components have to be built to higher standards to survive the more extreme operating conditions, making the aircraft cost more. The fuel consumption will never be as efficient as subsonic aircraft. There is no way that any currently buildable aircraft would be anywhere near as affordable for consumers, meaning once again only the rich would use it. That means less airframes being shipped, increasing the cost per unit. Sounds like another Concorde/Space shuttle/B2/VentureStar/Star Wars project.

Wait 15-20 years and scramjet tech might be far enough along to make a working product.

[JoshuaZ]

Guys, 600 Million yen is only like 300 or 400 dollars US. I mean, thats super cheap!

[FulcrumPilot]

I predict that this "new" concorde will have no wings whatsoever and will look like a bullet train in the sky, and everyone will sit facing backwards, don't ask me why.

[ambush]

hmmm airbus!

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Wait 15-20 years and scramjet tech might be far enough along to make a working product.

Maybe that's what they are doing, investing in their scramjet technology ?

[Randman]

Speed is one thing but if you look at carriers like Virgin, Emirates and Singapore Airlines, it's the amenities that are king now. Executive economy on SIA on the non-stops to LA and NY are better than Biz class on many other airliners. Not having to stop midway through a flight is also a boon.

There's also a big interest in trans-Pacific routes from Sydney that the Aussie gov't and Qantas are trying to protect.

[Y3a]

<< The SR-71 was designed for speed, and is supposedly only able to reach Mach 3 speeds; after refueling after takeoff no less. IMO, they would actually be better off redesigning the Concorde. I wouldn't expect to take any luggage or carry on onto a 300 seat SST. No meals, drinks, or bathrooms either. Larger people most likely would have to buy 2 seats. Maybe in another 20 years. >>

The Blackbird could SUSTAIN MAch 3+ speeds for hours. The heat problem was actually a bigger issue when developing the A-12/YF12a/SR71/SR71a/SR71b craft. The Concorde actually expanded about 7 inches due to heat.

Reducing friction means that it will need a faster takeoff speed. All the fast planes are Delta Wings. Perhaps an XB-70 redesign might work??? LOL

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by Y3a

<< All the fast planes are Delta Wings.

Ok, since you seem to know a lot about delta wings. How do you calculate the aspect ratio of a delta wing?

[Y3a]

Leading edges are generally linear, although there are cases of more complex geometries, such as the ogive delta (Concorde SST), the gothic delta, the cranked delta (Lockheed CL-823), the double delta (SAAB Viggen), delta + canards (North American XB-70 and others).

Almost all delta wings fall into the category of low aspect-ratio wings. Their aspect-ratio is defined by AR = 4/tan(D), where D is the leading edge sweep angle (this lead to AR less than 3 in most cases; about 1.8 in the case of Concorde). Wing thickness is generally small.

The problem is to find the aerodynamic properties of the wing (CL, Cd, Cm, Cp distribution, etc.), along with the lateral and longitudinal stability characteristics of the wings at different operation points.

The technical literature on deltas is huge, and it is safe to say that all speeds and sweep angles have been investigated (experimental, theoretical and computational research).

I found THIS in a much larger article, and I was trying to find the figues for the Blackbird itself, being a sectional delta.

What do YOU have on this?

[ASIMO]

These last few posts make my head hurt -- and I am an underwater basket-weaving major.

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally Posted by Y3a

I was trying to find the figues for the Blackbird itself, being a sectional delta.

What do YOU have on this?

http://www.deamons.3d.pl/schematy/pl...artin-sr71.gif

Just look at that thing, made more for ballistic control, who cares about airfoil performance etc when you have those two monsters powering you.

[Y3a]

At mach 3, 50 percent of the turbulance is from air getting blown out of the bypass doors! They are fun to fly in the simulator too! The XB-70 is too!!